• 0 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 19th, 2024

help-circle

  • Whether humanity will survive really is an open question. Despite all the rhetoric and protests and promises the annual CO2 emissions have continued to increase steadily. It’s wishful thinking to imagine that we are going to do anything about this before the consequences of our choices force our collective hand. Any report or scientific paper that includes a phrase like ‘there is still time’ is just not accepting the reality of the situation. A year ago James Hansen published Global Warming in the Pipeline where he wrote “Equilibrium global warming for today’s GHG amount is 10°C”. A 4–7 degree rise over 5000 years ended the last ice age, Ocean levels rose 400 feet. A 10 degree rise in a century or so would be way too fast for most species to adapt. It would inundate the majority of our most populated cities. I could go on, but I get depressed writing about this.


  • Nothing is ever 100% safe. Risk assessment is a big part of federal regulations. (See refs at JSTOR and NCBI) One of the key questions is what is the cost/benefit balance for a product. Kitchen knives are hazardous, but it’s very hard to cook without them, so they balance heavier on the benefit side despite the risks. Radithor is all risk and no benefit, so it was an easy decision to ban it.

    The point ContrarianTrail was making is that there is some risk in nearly everything. People have died as a result of garden tools, cars, house pets, shaving, buckets, toothpicks, baseball, etc. Here’s a list. The part he left out is the cost/benefit analysis. I prefer pull cords on my blinds, and I find the new regulations annoying. But I guess some federal agency decided they aren’t so useful that it’s worth the risk to children. And it would be selfish to be all upset about it if it saves some child’s life.



  • We’ve been arguing about this in the US for my whole life, and I’m not young. At this point it should be obvious neither of the two faces of our government has any interest in doing anything more about guns than using the topic as a wedge to divide us and as a source of campaign funding. So you want to ban guns. Is that the hill you want your children to die on? How about instead of insisting that’s the only way, we enact a solution that keeps kids alive and that both the red and blue team can agree on, like, say, mandatory armed guards (a paid job, not volunteers) at school entrances. Is it in conflict with our ideal vision of a peaceful society? Maybe, but it works. Other countries have done it and it stopped school shootings entirely.